Is Too Much Attention Spent On Swing Mechanics (at the amateur level)

[TB07]

This thread is an example of why people don’t get better. They don’t trust the people who actually make a living doing this. They find something that works on the range a few times and say things like “it’s hard for golf pros to consider the FACT that there are different ways of doing it”. As if that person has found the answer more than the people who have dedicated their livelihoods to study this stuff.

[iteachgolf]

You have to apply a force to the club to get it to move. The player is the one applying those forces to the club.

 

I really, really think we're saying the same thing Dan. I'm sure my terminology is not exactly spot on and that's where some of the confusion arises.

 

My point is, these forces have to be utilized. I tried most of my golfing career, to not utilize those those forces. I did not allow the rotational force of my body to swing the club to a target. Instead, I tried to control the club to place it on the ball. Surely you agree there's a huge difference?

 

You shouldn’t steer the club, absolutely. But that doesn’t mean you should t work on mechanics either. If a player is applying forces in the wrong direction at the wrong time you have to improve the mechanics to correct the motion. Once the motion is ingrained it can become subconscious. But just because it’s subconscious doesn’t mean it’s not still happening. At some point everyone had to work on there mechanics to get them where they are.

 

The goal should be subconscious competence, but you can only get there once you’ve become consciously competent. Some guys here think you can skip from incompetence all the way to subconscious competence, which it doesn’t work that way

[TB07]

You have to apply a force to the club to get it to move. The player is the one applying those forces to the club.

 

I really, really think we're saying the same thing Dan. I'm sure my terminology is not exactly spot on and that's where some of the confusion arises.

 

My point is, these forces have to be utilized. I tried most of my golfing career, to not utilize those those forces. I did not allow the rotational force of my body to swing the club to a target. Instead, I tried to control the club to place it on the ball. Surely you agree there's a huge difference?

 

You are saying the exact opposite.

[Millbrook]

You have to apply a force to the club to get it to move. The player is the one applying those forces to the club.

 

I really, really think we're saying the same thing Dan. I'm sure my terminology is not exactly spot on and that's where some of the confusion arises.

 

My point is, these forces have to be utilized. I tried most of my golfing career, to not utilize those those forces. I did not allow the rotational force of my body to swing the club to a target. Instead, I tried to control the club to place it on the ball. Surely you agree there's a huge difference?

 

I can relate to this as I used to cast and drag and as you say tried to control the club to place it on the ball. Now I let the torso apply the force and do little consciously with the hands. It feels 'gravitational' because everything is better connected and free flowing but it's really utilising different muscles and feels.

[iteachgolf]

I invite everyone to google Mike Malaska and gravity to get another view. Not necessarily better but worth considering.

 

Steve

 

Ands it’s a wrong view. Every PHD and biomechanics expert will tell you he’s way off. And you can’t get them to agree on much of anything, but they’d all agree on that.

[ThinkingPlus]

We've already beat this topic to death. Gravity has very little to do with how the club is swung. The forces and torques on the club are exponentially greater than the force of gravity and in transition to flatten the shaft there is actually an UPWARD force being applied to the grip. Opposite of gravity in a proper golf swing.

 

I'm just not sure how to respond to this Dan. You're a respected golf teacher. To insinuate your students are not utilizing gravity and centripetal force as they allow the club to track an arc is mind blowing. You really believe you're solely responsible for forcing the club back and through all on your own and not utilizing these forces of physics?

 

Centripetal force is 100% created by the player rotating. So yes it's absol 100% the sole responsibility of the player to create those forces. Don't put words in my mouth. I never said they aren't using those forces, one of them is 100% created by the player and the other is so small it has a negligible impact on how the club is swung.

 

It's you who doesn't understand the physics being applied to create those forces and torques. In every tour player that's ever been measured except one, and the one is notoriously short and crooked, is applying an UPWARD force in transition to get the club to flatten. It's the only way to get the clubhead to work down at a faster rate than the grip, which is the only way the club shaft will flatten in transition.

 

You have to apply a force to the club to get it to move. The player is the one applying those forces to the club.

Do you think that top players use gravity as a down swing starter which should minimize jerk (first derivative of acceleration is jerk - gravity is a constant acceleration force)? That would account for the silky smooth look as a swing transitions from back swing to down swing.

 

No. Like I said above it's the opposite. 99.8% of highly skilled golfers are applying an upward force on the grip. The opposite of using gravity. They are working against it.

 

100% of players who suck are applying a downward force on the grip. So if anyone is using gravity in transition it's the worst players not the best

OK. Handle goes up or head goes down or both. Essentially the player applies an upward force to create a small torque about the club balance point flattening the club shaft plane.

[iteachgolf]

Does the upward force come from the transition movement which shallows the club rather than a deliberate hand movement?

 

Force is applied through the hands. It’s not necessarily a conscious direct hand movement, but it can be. The club doesnt just shallow, the player must make that happen, and it can happen multiple ways but most often a combo of external shoulder rotation in trail arm and lead wrist flexion. Both of which apply an upward force

 

Does the upward force come from the transition movement which shallows the club rather than a deliberate hand movement?

 

Force is applied through the hands. It’s not necessarily a conscious direct hand movement, but it can be. The club doesnt just shallow, the player must make that happen, and it can happen multiple ways but most often a combo of external shoulder rotation in trail arm and lead wrist flexion. Both of which apply an upward force

[Millbrook]

Does the upward force come from the transition movement which shallows the club rather than a deliberate hand movement?

 

Force is applied through the hands. It's not necessarily a conscious direct hand movement, but it can be. The club doesnt just shallow, the player must make that happen, and it can happen multiple ways but most often a combo of external shoulder rotation in trail arm and lead wrist flexion. Both of which apply an upward force

 

Does the upward force come from the transition movement which shallows the club rather than a deliberate hand movement?

 

Force is applied through the hands. It's not necessarily a conscious direct hand movement, but it can be. The club doesnt just shallow, the player must make that happen, and it can happen multiple ways but most often a combo of external shoulder rotation in trail arm and lead wrist flexion. Both of which apply an upward force

 

Thanks Dan, that helps a lot.

[glk]

Hey Think (or is it Thinkerperson, I jest, I jest). You may find this of interest (can skip to 6:00 mark to see forces from the trail hand)

 

 

[media=]

[/media]

[iteachgolf]

 

I'm just not sure how to respond to this Dan. You're a respected golf teacher. To insinuate your students are not utilizing gravity and centripetal force as they allow the club to track an arc is mind blowing. You really believe you're solely responsible for forcing the club back and through all on your own and not utilizing these forces of physics?

 

Centripetal force is 100% created by the player rotating. So yes it's absol 100% the sole responsibility of the player to create those forces. Don't put words in my mouth. I never said they aren't using those forces, one of them is 100% created by the player and the other is so small it has a negligible impact on how the club is swung.

 

It's you who doesn't understand the physics being applied to create those forces and torques. In every tour player that's ever been measured except one, and the one is notoriously short and crooked, is applying an UPWARD force in transition to get the club to flatten. It's the only way to get the clubhead to work down at a faster rate than the grip, which is the only way the club shaft will flatten in transition.

 

You have to apply a force to the club to get it to move. The player is the one applying those forces to the club.

Do you think that top players use gravity as a down swing starter which should minimize jerk (first derivative of acceleration is jerk - gravity is a constant acceleration force)? That would account for the silky smooth look as a swing transitions from back swing to down swing.

 

No. Like I said above it's the opposite. 99.8% of highly skilled golfers are applying an upward force on the grip. The opposite of using gravity. They are working against it.

 

100% of players who suck are applying a downward force on the grip. So if anyone is using gravity in transition it's the worst players not the best

OK. Handle goes up or head goes down or both. Essentially the player applies an upward force to create a small torque about the club balance point flattening the club shaft plane.

 

Correct. Handle generally won’t literally work up but it’ll move up relative to right shoulder which is working down.

[juststeve]

I invite everyone to google Mike Malaska and gravity to get another view. Not necessarily better but worth considering.

 

Steve

 

Ands it's a wrong view. Every PHD and biomechanics expert will tell you he's way off. And you can't get them to agree on much of anything, but they'd all agree on that.

 

Most of the great golf that has ever been played was played without consulting PHD and bio mechanics experts. Such complication appears to be unnecessary although fashionable.

 

The reason I posted was not to debate the merits of your point, just to let those following the thread know that what you say is a teachers opinion, not the TRUTH delivered from on high.

 

Steve

[wadesworld]

You shouldn't steer the club, absolutely. But that doesn't mean you should t work on mechanics either. If a player is applying forces in the wrong direction at the wrong time you have to improve the mechanics to correct the motion. Once the motion is ingrained it can become subconscious. But just because it's subconscious doesn't mean it's not still happening. At some point everyone had to work on there mechanics to get them where they are.

 

The goal should be subconscious competence, but you can only get there once you've become consciously competent. Some guys here think you can skip from incompetence all the way to subconscious competence, which it doesn't work that way

 

Thanks.

 

But we've arrived back at the key point of the debate.

 

Is it only possible to improve mechanics solely by mechanically repeating drills? Or is it possible to improve mechanics by stopping focusing on trying to steer the club to the ball, and start focusing on allowing the rotational forces to swing the club (aka throwing the club to the target).

 

Is the only way to correct an inside takeaway to have the student make sure they don't hit a swim noodle in their takeaway and then continue to work on that for 12-18 months?

 

Or can an inside takeaway be corrected by the student focusing on the feel of throwing a club to a target? We're correcting the poor mechanics but utilizing a different method to get them corrected.

 

It is my experience the latter is possible. It is the contention of many, that the latter is impossible and mechanical drills is the only way. I firmly believe that focusing on the proper task allows your brain and body to subconsciously respond, and to create better mechanics.

 

Again, as stated, one gets better at tasks the more they repeat them. I have stated clearly that simply focusing on a task is not going to make you a scratch golfer if you only practice/play once a month. But I will argue until my last breath that it is possible to improve mechanics by changing focus. I have experienced it.

 

That does NOT invalidate mechanical drills for those who find them useful. But it does offer another path for those who have struggled to make progress despite trying their best to do what their local pro was suggesting.

[TB07]

I invite everyone to google Mike Malaska and gravity to get another view. Not necessarily better but worth considering.

 

Steve

 

Ands it's a wrong view. Every PHD and biomechanics expert will tell you he's way off. And you can't get them to agree on much of anything, but they'd all agree on that.

 

Most of the great golf that has ever been played was played without consulting PHD and bio mechanics experts. Such complication appears to be unnecessary although fashionable.

 

The reason I posted was not to debate the merits of your point, just to let those following the thread know that what you say is a teachers opinion, not the TRUTH delivered from on high.

 

Steve

 

It’s not really an opinion. It’s been measured what the best players are doing. I would consider Malaska’s method as an opinion of what someone should think about as opposed to facts of what’s actually happening. It’s already been stated many times that anyone can play good with certain thoughts and feels even if they aren’t what’s actually happening.

[glk]

You shouldn't steer the club, absolutely. But that doesn't mean you should t work on mechanics either. If a player is applying forces in the wrong direction at the wrong time you have to improve the mechanics to correct the motion. Once the motion is ingrained it can become subconscious. But just because it's subconscious doesn't mean it's not still happening. At some point everyone had to work on there mechanics to get them where they are.

 

The goal should be subconscious competence, but you can only get there once you've become consciously competent. Some guys here think you can skip from incompetence all the way to subconscious competence, which it doesn't work that way

 

Thanks.

 

But we've arrived back at the key point of the debate.

 

Is it only possible to improve mechanics solely by mechanically repeating drills? Or is it possible to improve mechanics by stopping focusing on trying to steer the club to the ball, and start focusing on allowing the rotational forces to swing the club (aka throwing the club to the target).

 

Is the only way to correct an inside takeaway to have the student make sure they don't hit a swim noodle in their takeaway and then continue to work on that for 12-18 months?

 

Or can an inside takeaway be corrected by the student focusing on the feel of throwing a club to a target? We're correcting the poor mechanics but utilizing a different method to get them corrected.

 

It is my experience the latter is possible. It is the contention of many, that the latter is impossible and mechanical drills is the only way. I firmly believe that focusing on the proper task allows your brain and body to subconsciously respond, and to create better mechanics.

 

Again, as stated, one gets better at tasks the more they repeat them. I have stated clearly that simply focusing on a task is not going to make you a scratch golfer if you only practice/play once a month. But I will argue until my last breath that it is possible to improve mechanics by changing focus. I have experienced it.

 

That does NOT invalidate mechanical drills for those who find them useful. But it does offer another path for those who have struggled to make progress despite trying their best to do what their local pro was suggesting.

Your example has me confused. Both the pool noodle and idea of throwing are external focus. Don't see either as an internal focus on what the body or body part is doing.

[iteachgolf]

I invite everyone to google Mike Malaska and gravity to get another view. Not necessarily better but worth considering.

 

Steve

 

Ands it's a wrong view. Every PHD and biomechanics expert will tell you he's way off. And you can't get them to agree on much of anything, but they'd all agree on that.

 

Most of the great golf that has ever been played was played without consulting PHD and bio mechanics experts. Such complication appears to be unnecessary although fashionable.

 

The reason I posted was not to debate the merits of your point, just to let those following the thread know that what you say is a teachers opinion, not the TRUTH delivered from on high.

 

Steve

 

Actually it is the truth. It’s what 99.8% of great golfers do and what 100% of bad golfers don’t do. All the players that played long ago did EXACTLY what I described. This is physics, not opinion. Gravity doesn’t try to shallow or flatten the club, that is a fact, no matter what Malaska says or believes.

 

Again it’s literally the only way a club can flatten in transition, you must actually work against gravity. Again that is a fact. It’s not up for debate.

[glk]

The Shasho video I posted shows exactly what iteach is talking about using Adam Scott as an example. He's apply a downward force with his lead hand and an upward force with the trail hand and the upward force is greater than the downward to get the COM of the club to move upwards in transition. Can skip to the 6:00 minute mark.

[ThinkingPlus]

Hey Think (or is it Thinkerperson, I jest, I jest). You may find this of interest (can skip to 6:00 mark to see forces from the trail hand)

 

 

[media=]

[/media]

Thanks. That was interesting. Seen some Sasho video in the past as well. Always good stuff.

[Jim Waldron]

Just to be clear, you think that improving the mental focus on a mid 80s player would lower his average score by 10 strokes so that he's flirting with even par?

 

Yes. It's not an overnight transition, but it can happen.

 

If you focus on the proper task, give up control and maintain that focus, more often than not you will hit a quality golf shot. Your brain knows how to do it, if you let it.

 

Don't misunderstand me, you have to have some technical fundamentals. You have to have a proper grip so the club can hinge. You have to allow the club to swing with enough width. You have to start in an address position that will allow you to execute the task.

 

But once you have those fundamentals down, focusing on right task will solve many, many swing flaws all on its own. The swing flaws are the symptom, not the disease. As an example, think about the common over-the-top problem that plagues most newer golfers. If your focus is on throwing the club to a target, you WILL NOT come of the top. You can't. You'd throw it into the ground. But rather than teaching students to focus on the feel of a club throw, most pros will draw lines on a monitor to show us how under the plane and inside we are. Then they'll setup swim noodles and put a shoebox outside our ball. Then they'll say "do this drill 3 times a week every week for 12-18 months and you'll have ingrained the right move." "What, it's not working? Oh..that's your fault. You're not committed enough."

 

What some of you are not understanding is there are people in the world that have taken many dozens of lessons, including from highly acclaimed teaching pros. They did the drills. The improvement would come, but it would quickly disappear. Why? Not because of a lack of commitment. Rather, because of a fundamental disconnect.

 

In my own personal case, in all my years of lessons, not a single conventional pro ever said anything to me about allowing the club to swing utilizing gravity. Thus, throughout most of my life, I tried to shove the club back and forth with my muscles. I was never told it wasn't my job to hit the ball. So, I made an ill-timed, awkward, massively over-the-top swing at the ball for most of my life.

 

Pros would always identify the correct flaws. My takeaway was too inside. I was too over the top. My club face was too open. I was going left at impact.

 

They'd give me drills. "Feel like you're shaking hands in the takeaway." "Hit the inside part of the ball." "Bump your left hip to start the downswing." But all they resulted in was the proverbial unfolding lawn chair. With all of these body part focuses, I made a very confused swing. On occasion, I'd hit the ball better, but I didn't know why, or how to do it again.

 

It wasn't until an unconventional pro alerted my idiot self to the fact that I WAS supposed to allow the club to swing utilizing gravity and I was not supposed to try to hit the ball that I saw actual, sustainable improvement. Feeling those feelings for the first time was like a bomb going off. Holy CRAP. I've been doing it SO wrong for all these years. THIS is what all those good golfers have been feeling. No wonder I could never make progress. It's like I was trying to cut down a tree with a toothbrush.

 

The conventional pros analysis of the problems was spot on. It was their lack of understanding WHY I had those problems that was at fault. I didn't take the club too far inside because it was a bad habit that had to be broken through 12-18 months of drills. I took the club too far inside because I was trying to hit the ball.

 

But it's really, really hard to get a golfer who learned via the conventional route to consider the fact there may be a different way. It's probably even harder to convince a golf pro. They learned via drills, their mentor taught them via drills, they've helped some golfers improve via drills, so by god, drills are the correct way, end of discussion.

 

Obviously there are people who can use conventional instruction methods and have success. The large numbers of single-digit handicaps in the world are proof of that. However, I contend there's an even larger number of people who don't have success. They take the same lessons. They do the same drills. But when they fail, they get the blame. Maybe, just maybe it's the instructor's failure to identify these fundamental disconnects that is at fault. It's like telling someone to dig a hole, then blaming them when the hole didn't get dug, but you never asked them if they know how to use a shovel.

 

Finally, let me say that even using unconventional instruction still requires repetition to improve to a very high level. While there is no such thing as repeating a swing or "muscle memory," we as humans do get better at tasks the more we repeat them. I don't care what methodology you use, if you only play golf and hit the range once a month, your chances of becoming a great golfer are very, very low.

 

Actually it is an "overnight transition" for a lot of my mental game students!

 

Dropping ten strokes or more due to better application of mental game principles is certainly very common, in my teaching experience.

[juststeve]

I repeat what I said. Most great golfers learned to be great golfers without regard to PHDs and bio mechanics experts. How? They were able to do that because knowledge of bio mechanics is not necessary for learning to swing a golf club. Bio mechanics is an unnecessary complication, not something that needs to be taught. If anyone disagrees tell me how you think Hogan and Snead and Trevino and Nicklaus and countless others learned to hit the ball to a target.

 

Steve

[Swingman420]

My experience in learning to swing was a little different from Wadesworld on the specifics. Same result though.

Exact specific torque vectors and physics definitions are totally unnecessary and only create confusion.

EJ famously used a handkerchief and pocketknife to illustrate it all.

Swinging a club is not different from anything else. The genesis of it all is understanding what you are trying to do.

 

[Ghost of Snead]

I repeat what I said. Most great golfers learned to be great golfers without regard to PHDs and bio mechanics experts. How? They were able to do that because knowledge of bio mechanics is not necessary for learning to swing a golf club. Bio mechanics is an unnecessary complication, not something that needs to be taught. If anyone disagrees tell me how you think Hogan and Snead and Trevino and Nicklaus and countless others learned to hit the ball to a target.

 

Steve

 

Which instructors are teaching biomechanics to their students ? Any instructor worth their salt is using biomechanics to understand the swing better and have the ability to translate/dumb it down to the average amateur who doesn't need the detail.

[juststeve]

I repeat what I said. Most great golfers learned to be great golfers without regard to PHDs and bio mechanics experts. How? They were able to do that because knowledge of bio mechanics is not necessary for learning to swing a golf club. Bio mechanics is an unnecessary complication, not something that needs to be taught. If anyone disagrees tell me how you think Hogan and Snead and Trevino and Nicklaus and countless others learned to hit the ball to a target.

 

Steve

 

Which instructors are teaching biomechanics to their students ? Any instructor worth their salt is using biomechanics to understand the swing better and have the ability to translate/dumb it down to the average amateur who doesn't need the detail.

 

You miss the point. Instructors don't need the detail either. Good golf instruction predates bio mechanics by at least a century. Bio mechanics, although fascinating for some are irrelevant to learning or teaching the golf swing. If you want an intellectual puzzle, work on the double slit experiment.

 

Steve

[iteachgolf]

I repeat what I said. Most great golfers learned to be great golfers without regard to PHDs and bio mechanics experts. How? They were able to do that because knowledge of bio mechanics is not necessary for learning to swing a golf club. Bio mechanics is an unnecessary complication, not something that needs to be taught. If anyone disagrees tell me how you think Hogan and Snead and Trevino and Nicklaus and countless others learned to hit the ball to a target.

 

Steve

 

Which instructors are teaching biomechanics to their students ? Any instructor worth their salt is using biomechanics to understand the swing better and have the ability to translate/dumb it down to the average amateur who doesn't need the detail.

 

You miss the point. Instructors don't need the detail either. Good golf instruction predates bio mechanics by at least a century. Bio mechanics, although fascinating for some are irrelevant to learning or teaching the golf swing. If you want an intellectual puzzle, work on the double slit experiment.

 

Steve

 

Actually they are completely relevant. In the past you either did the correct biomechanics and applied the correct forces and torques or you sucked. If you do it already naturally, great.

 

But the population who will never get it without being taught how the body and arms move to make it happen is WAY larger than the population who will just do it naturally. Increased understanding on what, how and when to move certain pieces is why the depth of good players continues increasing exponentially and the number of players who get better younger and faster is never more evident. The peak age on tour use to be mid 30s, now players in their 20s are literally dominating the game like never before.

 

And good teaching doesn’t predate biomechanics, the top teachers understood biomechanics 100 years ago. The difference now is there are WAY more quality teachers as good informations spreads further and further. Those good teachers are the ones creating MORE great players at an earlier age. Instead of years of trial and error they can get world class skills much faster

[davep043]

Beyond the arguing, this is pretty interesting. In my view, its a really positive thing for an instructor to understand in detail the physics of the golf swing, and the biomechanics involved in making consistent efficient swings. Its much less important for most students to understand these things in detail. Its the job of the instructor to evaluate a student's swing, to determine what changes are needed to improve, to prioritize those changes. I wouldn't think that part is easy, but the next part might be even more difficult. The instructor has to find a way to help the student to make those changes. We golfers come to a lesson with different levels of understanding, different aptitudes for science, and widely varying "feels". And all the instructor can do is work with our feels, because what we feel is almost never exactly what we're really doing. For some, the best goal just might be "throw the clubhead at the target". For others, the better explanation might be to apply upward force on the grip in transition in order to flatten the club.

So to the original question, for some players, mechanical details are a complete waste of time. If "throw the clubhead at the target" works, go ahead and ignore the science. For others, its the single best way to learn and improve. For me, I've found that I like to understand why decreasing my knee bend will help me make a better hip turn, and I like knowing how to video myself to evaluate a few simple checkpoints to monitor my progress, essentially to make sure that my "feel" corresponds to the right physical movement. So for me, and me only, a certain level of mechanical explanation helps to understand the goal of a change, but it comes down to learning the feel of the improved movement.

[PreppySlapCut]

I think the vast majority think too much about the wrong things.

[iteachgolf]

Btw Steve the first written book on biomechanics predates Christ and biomechanics has been a University degree program since World War 1 in the US.

 

Here’s the first book on biomechanics of animals and what causes movement which was written by Aristotle.

 

https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/motion/

[Ghost of Snead]

I repeat what I said. Most great golfers learned to be great golfers without regard to PHDs and bio mechanics experts. How? They were able to do that because knowledge of bio mechanics is not necessary for learning to swing a golf club. Bio mechanics is an unnecessary complication, not something that needs to be taught. If anyone disagrees tell me how you think Hogan and Snead and Trevino and Nicklaus and countless others learned to hit the ball to a target.

 

Steve

 

Which instructors are teaching biomechanics to their students ? Any instructor worth their salt is using biomechanics to understand the swing better and have the ability to translate/dumb it down to the average amateur who doesn't need the detail.

 

You miss the point. Instructors don't need the detail either. Good golf instruction predates bio mechanics by at least a century. Bio mechanics, although fascinating for some are irrelevant to learning or teaching the golf swing. If you want an intellectual puzzle, work on the double slit experiment.

 

Steve

 

With that logic, you don't need the technology that comes with today's golf equipment and physicians today don't need MRIs or CT scans.

 

If I were you, I'd switch back to hickory ...

[Swingman420]

Ernest Jones wrote all about this subject. Swinging Into Golf. Excellent.

[mikpga]

Convince the golfer that better ball striking doesn't always equate to lower scores and then you're off to a good start...

 

How many golfers are chasing lower scores vs chasing better ball striking?

 

Most golfers are under the assumption that better ball striking will lead to lower scores. However, there are many golfers who will be quite satisfied with better ball striking irrelevant of their score...

 

First time students who tell me they want to lower their score and need to work on their driver/tee shot, yet cannot demonstrate the ability to pitch 8 out of 10 balls onto the green from 40 yards have a very poor concept in their head in regards to how to lower their score...

 

I would say most golfers chase better ball striking and distance more so than chasing lower scores.

[iteachgolf]

Convince the golfer that better ball striking doesn't always equate to lower scores and then you're off to a good start...

 

How many golfers are chasing lower scores vs chasing better ball striking?

 

Most golfers are under the assumption that better ball striking will lead to lower scores. However, there are many golfers who will be quite satisfied with better ball striking irrelevant of their score...

 

First time students who tell me they want to lower their score and need to work on their driver/tee shot, yet cannot demonstrate the ability to pitch 8 out of 10 balls onto the green from 40 yards have a very poor concept in their head in regards to how to lower their score...

 

I would say most golfers chase better ball striking and distance more so than chasing lower scores.

 

In what case, over any reasonable period of time, does better ball striking not lead lead to lower scores? The biggest gap between all handicap levels is ball striking. You’re telling me the guy who can’t chip will get worse by hitting more greens and having to chip less often?